31? 


A  Lucid  Letter  on  the  Issues  of 

the  Campaign 


-By 


REV.  EMANUEL  SCHREIBER, 

Rabbi  Temple  Emanuel. 


Chicago,  III.,  August  16,  1900. 

Mr.  Leopold  Moss,  City. 

My  Dear  Friend:  Your  letter  of  August  9,  asking  me  to  give  you  my 
opinion  on  the  issues  of  the  campaign,  came  to  hand.  Considering  the  fact 
that  we  are  old  friends  from  Los  Angeles,  I  will  comply  with  your  wish. 

I  know  there  are  those  who  would  cling  to  the  childish  notion  of  their 
grandparents,  that  ministers  and  rabbis  have  no  opinions,  or  at  least, 
should  not  express  their  convictions  on  the  living  questions  of  the  day. 
But  this  ought  not  to  be  the  view  of  progressive  men  and  women.  For  if 
it  is  true  that  the  minister  is  the  follower  of  the  prophets  of  old,  then 
it  is  not  only  his  right,  but  his  sacred  duty,  not  to  be  silent  whenever 
it  is  time  to  speak  out.  There  was  no  question  of  government,  great  or 
small,  which  was  not  a  matter  of  deep  concern  to  the  Hebrew  prophets 
of  old;  they  made  political  speeches  on  street  corners,  and  from  the  roofs 
of  houses  wherever  and  whenever  the  people  assembled  and  the  emer¬ 
gencies  of  the  time  demanded  it.  There  is  nothing  in  the  anti-imperialistic 
and  anti-trust  literature  of  this  country  which  could  be  compared  to  the 
strong  denunciations  against  imperialism  and  trusts  made  by  the  prophets. 
Samuel,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Micah,  and  most  particularly  Amos.  The 
Hebrew  prophets  were  the  first,  oldest,  strongest  and  most  outspoken 
anti-imperialists.  They  saw  with  their  mind’s  eye  the  ideal  government, 
only  then  realized  when  “the  •  swords  will  be  changed  into  sickles,  and 
spears  into  pruning-hooks,  when  nation  will  not  lift  up  arms  against 
nation,  and  the  art  of  war  will  be  taught  no  more.”  (Isaiah,  Chap.  2; 
Micah,  Chap.  4.)  To  them  religion  was  politics  because  they  wanted 
politics  to  be  conducted  from  the  high  standard  of  ethics  and  religion. 
What  they  considered  wicked  in  the  individual  they  regarded  doubly 
wrong  and  tvicked  in  the  nation.  Their  principle  was,  “Justice  and  right¬ 
eousness  will  exalt  a  nation,  while  wrong-doing  will  disgrace  the  people.” 
This  truism  has  been  verified  in  the  history  of  old  modern  nations,  and 
history  repeats  itself.  The  powerful  republics  of  Greece  and  Rome  per¬ 
ished  through  imperialism.  The  great  Napoleon  Bonaparte  and  Spain, 
in  whose  land  at  one  time  the  sun  nevei'  set ,  -were  ruined  by  imperialism. 
Italy’s  colonial  policy  with  its  exorbitant  taxation  of  the  people  was  the 
cause  of  her  bread  riots.  The  great  trouble,  however,  is  that  neither 
individuals  nor  nations  profit  by  the  sad  experiences  of  others.  Only  the 
burnt  child  shuns  the  fire.  The  fact  that  another  child  was  burnt  exercises 
little  influence  on  its  action  So  it  is  with  grown  children. 

It  is  idle  for  me  to  express  an  opinion  on  all  the  issues  of  the  present 
campaign.  One  issue  is  enough.  What  would  you  think  of  husband  and 
wife  getting  excited  over  the  size  and  color  of  the  furniture  and  carpets 
of  their  rooms  while  their  whole  house  was  afire?  And  even  so  it  is 
with  regard  to  the  present  campaign.  What  are  all  the  issues  which 
touch  only  financial  and  material  interests  in  comparison  with  the  all- 
important.  grand,  sublime  and  overwhelming  question,  whether  these  great 


United  States  should  change  into  an  empire  or  remain  a  republic ?  Did 
it  ever  occur  to  you  that  Republicans,  by  the  very  fact  of  being  Repub¬ 
licans,  ought  not  to  support  an  imperialistic  policy?  The  Republican 
must  be  in  favor  of  a  republic,  and  not  uphold  a  monarchical  form  of 
government;  must  support  a  democracy  and  not  an  oligarchy.  1 
mean,  of  course,  “democracy”  not  in  the  partisan  but  in  its  original  sense 
which  is  “ government  of  the  people  in  contradistinction  to  aristocracy ” — 
government  by  the  privileged  class.  Of  course  the  Republicans  indignantly 
refute  the  very  suggestion  that  they  favor  an  empire ;  and  yet,  all  the 
argument  they  generally  bring  forth  runs  somewhat  like  this:  “Well, 
this  country  will  not  so  soon  become  an  empire;  the  danger  is  not  yet  at 
hand.”  Not  yet !  In  Rome  they  used  to  say  that  it  was  the  consul’s  duty 
to  see  that  no  harm  befell  the  republic  (ne  quid  detrimenti  res  publica 
eaperet ) .  They  were  forewarned.  Ovid,  the  great  Roman  poet,  said : 
“Principiis  obsta,”  etc.,  at  the  outset  you  must  resist  the  disease,  too 
late  is  the  remedy  prepared  when  the  illness  had  once  taken  control  of 
the  whole  body.”  “Eternal  vigilance  is  the  price  of  liberty.”  Therefore, 
even  if  it  were  true  that  the  protectorate  over  the  Philippines  by  this 
country  might  involve  us  in  war  with  European  powers,  even  then  the 
imperialistic  policy  of  the  administration  must  still  be  most  emphatically 
condemned.  Better  a  war  with  the'  European  powers  for  the  American 
principles  of  justice,  righteousness,  liberty  and  fair  play  than  a  war  of 
conquest  and  subjugation  against  a  weak  ally  waged  in  the  interest  of 
greed,  injustice,  servitude  and  oppression.  For  a  righteous  war  in  defense 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  American  Constitution  there 
will  always  be  more  volunteers  than  necessary.  But  the  men  in  the 
Republican  party  who  all  of  a  sudden  scare  the  people  with  their  pos¬ 
sible  European  war  know  better.  A  German  saying  is:  “Bange  machen 
gilt  nicht”  (“We  cannot  be  frightened  so  easy”).  But  on  the  other  hand, 
what  would  it  mean  if  imperialism  should  prevail  in  the  coming  election? 
It  would  mean  the  stepping  backward  into  barbarism.  It  would  mean 
a  death,  blow  to  constitutional  government  all  over  the  world.  Imperial¬ 
ism  and  militarism  have  made  the  French  Government  a  byword  and  a: 
laughing-stock,  have  made  the  Dreyfus  case  possible. 

All  the  threats  of  an  international  war  and  of  the 
country  in  the  event  of  Bryan’s  election  are  unworthy 
This  country  enjoys  such  a  great  prestige  in  the  world  that  the  words, 
“Hands  off  from  the  Philippines,”  coming  from  the  United  States,  will 
be  fully  respected  in  Europe;  because  the  world  knows  that  in  a  just  and 
righteous  war  our  country  is  invincible.  Had  our  war  against  the  Philip¬ 
pines  not  been  one  of  “criminal  aggression,”  as  President  McKinley  justly 
called  it,  it  would  have  been  over  long  ago.  It  would  have  taken  less 
than  a  hundred  days — the  time  it  took  for  our  victory  over  Spain — and 
would  have  ended  with  glory  for  the  United  States.  As  it  is,  there  is  no 
enthusiasm  for  it  among  the  soldiers,  because  they  know  that  they 


ruination  of  our 
of  consideration. 


are 


not  engaged  in  a  good  and  noble  cause  They  feel  that  they  kill  and  are 
killed  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  satisfy  the  insatiable  gfreed  of  unscru¬ 
pulous  trusts  and  franchise-grabbers,  who  in  the  end  (and  God  alone 
knows  when  this  end  may  be)  will  be  the  only  beneficiaries  of  this  unholy 
and  wicked  war  of  conquest.  Tf  the  soldiers  lack  enthusiasm  for  this  war 
of  “criminal  aggression.”  the  people  of  the  United  States  abhor  it.  Even 
the  most  fanatical  and  bigoted  Republicans  do  not  dare  approve  it.  For 
how  can  they  approve  what  President  McKinley  called  “criminal  aggres¬ 
sion?”  They  therefore  say:  “We  are  in  it  and  must  make  the  best  of  it.” 
And  so  we  go  on  making  not  “the  best”,  but  the  worst  of  it.  For  the 
killing  of  over  two  thousand  American  soldiers,  the  death  by  disease  of  at 
least  double  that  number,  the  crippling,  disabling  and  wounding  of  thou¬ 
sands  of  others  is  to  be  sure,  not  “the  best”  in  the  bargain.  Neither  is  the 
wasting  of  at  least  two  hundred  million  dollars  which  the  war  has  de¬ 
voured  so  far,  “the  best.”  Had  this  vast  amount  of  money  been  spent 


oy  the  Government  in  irrigating  the  many  millions  of  acres  of  land  lying 
idle  between  Chicago  and  San  Francisco  on  the  one,  and  Chicago  and  New 
Orleans  on  the  other  hand,  it  would  help  support  our  millions  of  white 
settlers  and  farmers,  which  is  more  than  the  whole  population  of  the 
Phillipines.  Such  a  course  would  have  been  of  greater  benefit  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  and  to  true  civilization,  than  a  forcible 
conquest  of  the  Philippines  could  ever  possibly  be;  for  the  farmers,  labor¬ 
ing  men  and  small  merchants  will  never  be  benefited  by  this  “criminal 
aggression”  and  annexation.  At  present  they  have  to  pay  for  it  with 
the  blood  of  their  sons  and  with  the  burden  of  taxation  ;  but  later  on  when 
“crown  colonies”  will  be  ours,  they  will  have  to  pay  for  them  in  the  shape 
of  cheap  imported  oriental  labor.  Those  who,  as  you  and  I,  have  seen  the 
workings  in  California  by  Chinese  competition  in  every  branch  of 
business,  manufacture  and  labor,  a  fact  which  is  the  main  cause  why  San 
Francisco's  population  does  not  increase  at  the  same  rate  as  other  American 
cities — know  what  is  in  store  for  this  country  after  the  conquest  of  the 
Philippines. 

And  is  the  innocent  blood  of  the  Filipinos  which  is  being  shed  by 
our  boys,  nothing?  Are  they  not  God’s  children?  Are  they  not  engaged  in 
a  noble,  sublime  and  holy  cause?  Are  they  not  fighting  and  struggling 
for  the  same  principles  of  liberty  and  freedom  and  independence  for  which 
we  yearly  celebrate  the  Fourth  of  July?  Is  it  their  fault  that  our  Presi¬ 
dent  repeated  regarding  them  the  role  which  King  George  III.  played  with 
regard  to  the  fathers  of  our  Republic?  George  III.  in  his  proclamation 
of  1776  said:  “It  is  my  desire  to  restore  to  the  American  colonists  the 
blessing  of  law  and  order,  which  they  have  exchanged  to  their  own  harm, 
with  the  terror  of  war  and  the  arbitrary  tyranny  of  their  leaders.”  In 
his  Minneapolis  speech  of  Oct.  12,  1899,  McKinley  said:  “I  believe  that 
Congress  will  give  to  the  Filipinos  a  government  which  will  be  a 
blessing  to  them.”  A  wonderful  agreement  between  George  the  Third’s  and 
the  President  of  the  Republic! 

A  government  is  not  a  thing  which  can  be  “given  or  bestowed.”  Our 
constitution  plainly  speaks  for  the-  “ rights  of  government  and  of  self- 
government.”  I,  for  one,  prefer  a  bad  government  under  a  Republic  to 
the  blessing  of  the  best  government  under  a  king.  Because  in  a  Republic 
had  government  can  be  changed  by  a  vote  of  the  people.  And  yet,  unbiased 
judgment  will  force  every  honest  historian  to  admit  that  George  III. 
had  a  better  case  against  the  fathers  of  our  Republic  than  has  the 
present  administration  against  the  Filipinos.  The  action  of  George 
III.  then  was  less  eondemnable  than  is  the  action  of  our  President  now. 
The  Filipinos  trusted  in  the  fairness,  honor,  generosity  and  justice  of  this 
great  Republic,  as  a  child  trusts  in  its  mother.  They  were  our  allies  to 
whom  we  were  under  obligations.  The  fathers  of  our  Republic  were  at  least 
rebels  and  insurgents  against  England  and  made  no  secret  of  it.  Are  the 
Filipinos  indeed  insurgents  against  the  United  States?  No,  and  a  thousand 
times  no!  No  matter  what  the  administration  press  may  say  about  it,  they 
never  belonged  to  us,  Spain  had  no  right  to  sell  what  she  did  not  possess. 
They  might  have  been  rebels  against  Spain,  but  they  were  not  rebels  against 
the  United  States.  Human  beings  are  not  cattle  that  can  be  sold  without 
their  consent.  Lincoln,  the  true  Republican,  abolished  slavery.  Were  Mr. 
McKinley  a  Republican  of  the  Lincoln  calibre,  he  would  never  have  dis¬ 
graced  his  presidential  term  by  staining  our  flag  with  a  blot  of  slavery  by 
allowing  the  Stars  and  Stripes  to  float  over  the  territory  of  the  Sultan  of 
Sulu  where  slavery  rules  supreme.  Again,  George  the  Third  was  absolutely 
under  no  obligations  to  George  Washington  or  other  rebels  against  Great 
Britain:  but’  our  great  Republic  plays  the  part  of  the  ingrate  against  those 
who  were  her  best  allies  and  trusting  friends.  Old  as  history  is,  it  furnishes 
very  few  cases  of  such  base  ingratitude.  That  monarchies  are  ungrateful, 
is  an  old  story;  but  our  action  regarding  Aguinaldo,  is  a  chain  of  hypocrisy, 
deceit,  falsehood  and  ingratitude.  In  1898  when  the  Republic  was  organized 

4 


in  the  Philippines  as  in  Cuba,  when  the  administration  was  officially  in¬ 
formed  that  the  Filipinos  insisted  on  independence  (see  reports  of  Consul 
Williams,  General  Whittier,  Pratt,  Wildman,  Aguinaldo’s  proclamation 
and  other  documents)  then  it  would  have  been  the  proper  time  for  the 
administration  to  undeceive  their  allies  and  friends.  Such  action,  while  it 
might  not  have  been  noble,  generous,  grateful  and  worthy  of  the  greatest 
Republic  on  earth,  would  at  least  have  been  straightforward.  But  at  that 
time,  those  who  controlled  the  President’s  actions,  did  not  yet  deem  the  hour 
ripe  and  the  moment  opportune,  to  stab  the  trusting  friend  in  the  back.  At 
that  time  President  McKinley  deemed  it  still  necessary  to  deceive  the  Fili¬ 
pinos  and  the  Americans  with  the  insincere  phrase  in  his  message:  “I  do 
not  speak  of  forcible  annexation,  for  nobody  thinks  of  it.  According  to  our 
moral  code,  this  would  be  criminal  aggression — April  11th,  1898.  At  that 
time  Commander  Bradford  was  still  permitted  to  tell  the  truth  to  Mr.  Frye 
about  Aguinaldo.  When  in  Paris,  he  declared:  “We  have  become  re¬ 
sponsible  for  all  he  did,  he  is  our  ally  and  we  must  protect  him/' — Oct.  14tli. 
1898.  Of  course  now  Aguinaldo  is  slandered  as  a  man  who  took  bribes.  That 
Aguinaldo  did  not  accept  the  bribe  from  Spain,  is  best  proven  by  such 
American  authorities  as  Consul  Wildman  at  Hong  Kong,  and  Consul  Wil¬ 
liams  at  Manila.  Would  Aguinaldo  be  a  man  of  such  low  character  as  he 
now  is  made  out  to  be  by  the  administration,  and  press,  some  of  the  shrewd 
trust  lobbyists  in  Washington  would  long  ago  have  succeeded  in  bribing 
Aguinaldo  as  they  have  bought  up  many  a  great  American  politician  not 
belonging  to  those  “wild  savages  incapable  of  self-government.”  That  ad¬ 
ministration  circles  know  of  the  injustice  of  this  war  of  conquest,  is  best 
proven  by  their  stooping  to  that  old,  threadbare  excuse  of,  “manifest 
destiny  and  divine  providence.”  These  cheap  phrases  have  been  since  time 
immemorial,  the  screens  behind  which  tyrants,  despots  and  kings  tried  to 
hide  their  evil  doings  and  wrongs.  The  very  corner-stone  of  “royalty  by 
divine  grace”  is  based  upon  this  “manifest  destiny  business.”  Every  national 
crime  can  be  defended  on  this  score.  No  sane  man  can  believe  that  what 
was  “criminal  aggression”  according  to  President  McKinley  on  April  11th, 

1898,  has  become  “manifest  destiny  and  divine  providence”  on  Feb.  16tli, 

1899.  (McKinley’s  words  in  Boston  and  Minneapolis.)  Another  proof  that 
the  Republicans  know  the  administration  to  be  wrong  on  this  question,  can 
be  seen  in  their  frantic  efforts  to  becloud  the  issues.  They  are  afraid  to  call 
a  spade  a  spade.  You  will  never  find  in  the  administration  press  and  in  the 
speeches  of  Republican  orators  the  term  “imperialism;”  they  prefer  to  use 
the  harmless  word  “expansion.”  By  the  claim  that  the  great  Domccrat, 
Jefferson,  was  an  expansionist,  they  hope  to  deceive  the  people.  Jefferson 
believed  in  expansion  by  means  of  freedom,  but  not  in  expansion  by  means 
of  brute  force  and  conquest  ’’without  the  consent  of  the  governed.”  Enlarg¬ 
ing  the  Republic  so  that  the  Constitution  followed  the  flag,  is  a  consumma¬ 
tion  devoutly  to  be  wished.  This  was  Jefferson’s  expansion  theory;  but  with 
the  counterfeit  of  colonial  possessions  which  is  now  the  policy  of  the  admin¬ 
istration  with  forcible  annexation  of  territory  to  be  governed  by  arbitrary 
power,  with  “taxation  without  representation,”  men  like  Jefferson,  Lincoln 
and  other  patriots  and  lovers  of  freedom,  had  no  patience.  Jefferson  de¬ 
clared  most  emphatically:  “If  there  is  one  principle  more  deeply  rooted 
than  any  other  in  the  breast  of  every  American,  it  is,  that  we  should  have 
nothing  to  do  icith  conquest.”  Again,  he  said:  “Conquest  is  not  in  our 
principles,  it  is  inconsistent  with  our  government.”  1  might  change  the 
words  of  the  psalmist  alluding  to  idolators  of  gold,  silver  and  stone,  in  a 
way  that  it  might  apply  to  the  idolatrous,  “they  have  eyes,  but  do  not  want 
to  see ;  they  have  ears,  but  do  not  want  to  hear.”  And  why  ?  Because  they 
are  idolators  in  the  sense  of  party  worship.  The  Republicans  are  well  aware 
of  Lincoln’s  and  Jefferson’s  views,  but  they  bow  down  before  the  idol  of 
their  party. 

They  cannot  emancipate  themselves  from  the  slavery  of  party.  In  their 
party  fanaticism,  many  Republicans  go  so  far  as  to  style  those  noble  men 


who,  like  Senator  Wellington  of  Maryland,  care  more  for  the  welfare  of 
their  country  than  for  the  victory  of  their  party — Traitor !  Traitor  to  whom  ? 
To  Mark  Hanna?  to  the  Standard  Oil  Company  and  other  trusts  hostile  to 
the  people?  Has  it  come  so  far  that  trusts  are  monopolizing  and  cornering 
patriotism?  Judged  by  the  standard  of  Abraham  Iincoln’s  patriotism  and 
Republicanism,  it  is  more  than  questionable  whether  Lincoln,  if  alive  to¬ 
day,  would  vote  for  the  Republican  ticket.  Hence,  he  too,  like  Wellington, 
on  account  of  his  support  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  might  be 
styled  “traitor’  by  the  Republicans  of  the  Mark  Hanna  stripe.  Would  to 
God  there  were  many  such  "traitors”  as  Carl  Schurz,  Olney,  Wilson,  and 
Wellington.  According  to  up-to-date  Republicanism,  the  following  borders 
on  treason:  “When  we  were  political  slaves  of  George  the  Third  and  wanted 
to  be  free,  we  called  the  maxim  that  all  men  are  “created  equal”  a  self-evi¬ 
dent  truth :  but  now  that  we  have  grown  fat  and  have  lost  all  fear  of  being 
slaves  ourselves,  we  have  become  so  greedy  to  be  masters  that  we  call  the 
maxim  “a  self-evident  lie”  “The  Fourth  of  July  has  not  quite  dwindled 
away,  it  is  still  a  great  day  for  burning  firecrackers.”  Yet  this  declaration 
was  made  Aug.  15,  1855,  by  Abraham  Lincoln.  Xo  Mark  Hanna  Repub¬ 
lican  dare  to-day  indorse  such  “treasonable”  doctrine. 

But  we  often  hear  the  maxim,  “Our  Country,  right  or  wrong.”  This  is 
false  and  pernicious  doctrine.  When  our  country  is  wrong,  it  is  the  duty 
of  our  people  to  right  it.  This  has  been  for  over  three  years,  and  is  still 
the  issue  in  France  with  regard  to  the  Dreyfus  case.  True  French  patriots 
like  Zola,  Picquart,  Scheurer, — Kestner,  Reinach  and  others,  bitterly, 
valiantly  and  to  great  extent  successfully  fought  the  wrong  principle  “our 
country  right  or  wrong.”  How  much  more  reprehensible  then  is  the  maxim 
“our  party  right  or  wrong,”  which  alas !  constitutes  to-day  the  creed  of  more 
than  one-half  of  the  Republican  party.  The  country  existed  long  before  the 
party  was  born,  and  will  exist  long  after  the  Republican  party  will  have  died 
of  inanition  and  corruption.  The  argument  of  these  party  idolators  is,  “we 
dislike  and  regret  the  Philippine  business;  but  we  are  ‘in  it,’  and  must  go 
on  to  the  bitter  end.”  Why  go  on  ?  The  fact  that  the  administration  put  us 
into  the  business,  is  no  reason  at  all  why  we  must  stay — “in  it.”  Much 
better  to  put  the  country  out  of  it,  by  putting  those  out  of  power  who  in  true 
imperialistic  fashion,  without  the  least  authority  from  the  people,  without 
even  asking  Congress,  indulged  in  a  war  of  conquest  in  defiance  of  the 
American  Constitution  and  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  That  with  the 
re-election  of  McKinley  the  foundations  of  our  government  would  be  en¬ 
dangered,  can  be  best  seen  by  the  brazen  impudence  with  which  even,  now  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  is  publicly  assailed. 

William  Dudley  Foulke  of  Indiana,  has  signalized  his  coming  to  the 
support  of  the  administration's  imperial  policy,  by  declaring  in  a  public 
speech  that  “the  statement  found  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that 
all  men  are  created  equal,  is  not  true.”  What  will  the  supporters  of  the 
administration  do  after  election,  in  case  it  should  again  be  placed  in  power? 
It  is  nothing  new  to  hear  now-a-days  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
ridiculed  as  an  antiquated  document,  as  “impracticable » sentimentality”, 
like  some  lullaby  from  olden  times  when  this  country  was  still  in  its  in¬ 
fancy  ;  but  out  of  time  and  rhyme  with  our  age  of  billion-trusts  and  Stand- 
ard  Oil  methods  of  crushing  to  death  all  those  who  dare  to  be  independent 
of  this  octopus.  There  are  in  this  country,  only  too  many  sycophants  and 
tools  of  England’s  who,  in  their  servilism  to  British  royalty,  -are  not 
ashamed  to  say  that  our  Declaration  of  Independence  and  Constitution, 
those  most  costly  gems  in  the  diadem  of  human  civilization,  are  mere  “cra¬ 
dle-fixings”  and  “swaddling  clothes”  which  we  have  outgrown.  They  are 
Esaus  who  would  sell  their  birthright  for  a  mess  of  pottage  in  the  shape 
of  England’s  approval.  Such  “anarchy”  enthroned  on  high,  must  be  con¬ 
quered  in  the  coming  election,  or  the  Republic  will  have  ceased  to  be,  perhaps 
not  in  name,  but  certainly  in  fact.  For  a  Republic  cannot  endure  with  a 
population  composed  of  free  people  and  slaves.  Such  a  state  of  affairs,  must 
in  the  long  run.  destroy  the  Republie. 

6 


By  sowing  the  seeds  of  contempt  for  our  Constitution  abroad,  we  shall 
reap  a  whirlwind  at  home.  Our  children  will  in  vain  appeal  for  their 
heaven-born  rights  against  the  encroachment  of  the  trusts  and  other  evil 
powers  now  enthroned  in  high  places.  Careful  students  of  history  know 
that  from  Hamilton’s  time  to  the  present  day  there  have  grown  in  power 
an  ever  increasing  class  of  people  to  whom  the  Jeffersonian  spirit  of  our  Re¬ 
public  is  a  thorn  in  the  flesh;  who  look  upon  our  form  of  government  as  a 
kind  of  experiment  to  be  tolerated  no  longer  than  is  absolutely  necessary. 
This  influential  clique  composed  of  the  plutocracy  and  upstarts  who  would 
sell  the  Republic  for  a  smile  from  the  Prince  of  Wales,  see  now  their  time 
at  hand.  For  they  are  the  power  behind  the  throne  in  the  Republican 
party.  These  Anglo-maniacs  get  their  cue  from  England.  The  British  press 
teas  the  fir$t  to  urge  our  administration  to  take  .and  to  keep  the  Philip¬ 
pines.  This  coterie  naturally  prevented  an  expression  of  sympathy  for 
the  Boers  from  this  country.  This  band  of  army  contractors,  ship  owners, 
franchise-grabbers,  carpet-baggers  and  adventurers  would  make  a  great  deal 
of  money  out  of  the  Filipinos — they  only  and  nobody  else.  These  coward¬ 
ly  hunters  after  the  European  titles  of  nobility  for  their  heiresses  urged 
upon  the  administration  the  imperialistic  policy  of  forcible  conquest.  Why? 
Not  so  much  for  the  sake  of  distant  colonies,  but  for  the  purpose  of  forcing 
their  government  to  have  a  large  standing  army.  They  need  such  an  army 
because  they  know  that  the  concentration  of  the  national  wealth  in  a  few 
hands  and  trusts,  is  a  dangerous  undertaking  in  a  Republic.  Hence,  they 
want  a  large  number  of  hired  regular  soldiers  paid  by  the  government  who 
could  be  relied  upon  to  shoot  harmless  citizens  and  laboring  men  in  case  of 
emergency.  I  know  that  the  Republican  party  has  great  fascination  for  the 
German  American.  Long  before  I  came  to  this  country,  which  was  in  1881, 
I  was  an  intensely  ardent  Republican.  My  heart  bled  when  I  read  in  the 
German  papers  of  Garfield’s  assassination.  I  devoted  part  of  my  sermon  in 
a  German  temple  to  the  denunciation  of  that  crime.  Although  at  first  living 
in  the  South,  I  was  an  enthusiastic  Republican  and  cast  proudly  my  first 
vote  for  James  G.  Blaine.  And  so  nearly  all  educated  German  Americans, 
as  soon  as  they  land  on  these  shores  are  staunch  Republicans.  It  is  the  name 
which  exercises  such  an  inspiring  influence.  Coming  from  a  land  where  mil¬ 
itarism  is  in  its  fullest  glory,  where  the  most  ignorant  and  arrogant — the  two 
generally  go  hand  in  hand — young  lieutenant  is  more  respected  and  honored 
than  the  oldest  and  greatest  professor,  they  naturally  hate  and  despise  this 
accursed  institution  of  militarism.  Hence,  they  see  in  the  Republic  the  very 
climax  of  anti-militarism.  Not  well  versed  in  the  affairs  of  this  country 
they  think  as  I  thought,  that  the  Republican  party  is  the  noblest  and 
strongest  expression  of  anti-monarchism.  “Well,  ‘Fuimus  Troes’ — we  have 
been  Trojans,”  exclaimed  Panthus  at  the  sight  of  Troy  in  flames.  At  one 
time  the  Republican  party  did  appeal  strongly  to  the  German  American, 
but  this  has  been  before  the  party  was  controlled  by  Mark  Hanna,  the 
trusts  and  all  the  evil  powers  of  corruption.  As  I  said  in  the  beginning, 
the  house  is  afire  and  we  have  no  time  to  waste  our  energies  on  side 
issues. 

The  treatment  of  Porto  Rico  shows  how  a  President  who  knew  our 
plain  duty  towards  our  most  faithful  friends,  changed  his  opinion  on 
account  of  certain  pernicious  influences.  The  Filipinos,  like  the  Porto 
Ricans,  would  have  done  for  this  country  in  the  way  of  commerce  and 
patronage  much  more  than  the  imperialists  hope  to  get  from  them  after 
their  subjugation  by  brutal  force.  There  is  no  need  for  me  to  say  a 
word  on  other  issues.  The  trust  issue,  is  the  imperialist  issue  and  vice 
rersa.  One  would  not  exist  without  the  other. 

Let  me  close  with  the  quotation  of  two  noble  passages;  one  from  Mr. 
McKinley  when  he  was  still  true  to  his  better  self  and  the  best  aspirations 
of  True  Republicanism.  Mr.  McKinley’s  words  uttered  in  1890  at  a  New 
England  dinner  in  New  York  City,  read  as  follows: 

“Human  rights  and  constitutional  privileges  must  not  be  forgotten  in 

7 


4 


the  race  for  wealth  and  eomnierciai  supremacy.  The  government  by  the 
people  must  be  by  the  people  and  not  by  a  few  of  the  people.  It  must 
rest  upon  the  free  consent  of  the  governed.  Power,  it  must  be  remembered , 
which  is  secured  by  oppression,  or  usurpation,  or  by  any  form  of  injus¬ 
tice,  is  soon  dethroned The  other  passage  is  the  famous  admonition  of 
Abraham  Lincoln,  uttered  Nov.  19th,  1863,  at  the  dedication  of  the  ceme¬ 
tery  at  Gettysburg.  It  reads  as  follows: 

“Four  score  and  seven  years  ago  our  fathers  brought  forth  upon  thi> 
continent  a  new  nation  conceived  in  liberty  and  dedicated  to  the  propo¬ 
sition  that  all  men  are  created  equal.  It  is  for  us,  the  living,  rather  to 
dedicate  to  the  unfinished  work  which  they  who  fought  here  have  thus  far 
so  nobly  advanced.  It  is  rather  for  us  to  be  dedicated  to  the  great  task- 
remaining  before  us  that  we  here  highly  resolve  that  these  dead  shall 
not  have  died  in  vain,  that  this  nation  shall  have  a  new  birth  of  freedom, 
and  that  government  of  the  people  by  the  people  and  for  the  people,  shall 
not  perish  from  the  earth.” 

Needless  to  sav  that  so  far  as  I  am  concerned  I  shall  cast  mv  vote  for 
the  noble  standard-bearer — William  Jennings  Bryan.  Your  friend, 

Emanuel  Schreiber. 


8 


2  Z  ^ 

2.  TJ 

2  °  5 

0Q  3J 

Cv- 

a-  ’—•  3 

5T  ►a’ 

o  g  5P 

o  S' 

H-l  O 

5  s.  - 

v»  CD  . 

r^: 

^  o 
<  00 

3  1 

N 

2“  o' 

CTQ  O 

v*  H  i  i 

0 

o 


v.  *-  CD  cn  _ 

oO'C^cr|-hH§  _ 

o  cr  2.  rc  -o  73  < 

n  ^  *+>  2  rB  o  °  o  < 

-  -  o  p*  ctq  ”  a.  o 

S  Zl  ** 

tr*  ^ 

°  M  ^ 

-C?  ?a 


n 

o  o 

3  3 


—  ^ 

p  3  3  U  g.  ~ 

£  2,  a-  £  c  ^ 

8  r  °  2  cr  3  <  o 

L  o^.  !*<  5  =  ^ 

3h~  ft  3  O  ^  j;-  3 

8J  O  ~  orq  C  s.  Ej  .ft) 

os  E£  2.  °  cr  B*  <_ 

a  « <§.  &  o  g.  | 

"  O  O  oo  3  g 

Jlas'Da  S  5' 
e.  s-  •  =  g  §  2  to 


3 - 
O 


03 

cr 

o 

3 


03 

3 

Q- 


3 

s 

H<  2 

O  5 
c  < 

03 


^  3“  ? •  tn  ^ 

e>  5  §  ?  S.  oo 

M  OQ  -  y 
o  •'J  o  & 

03  s*  ^2  3 

O  r<  CD 

p,  °  o 

go 


o 

3 

D- 

o 

i-t 


X  %> 

M  g- 

r-  o 
■_  H  cr 
o  —  G 

8  >■  m 
+  Z3 
‘  G  § 
w  g 

CD 


r 

m 

n 

x 

73 

W 

CO 

M 

PO 


03 

2 

H 

W 

2 

^3 

r 

H 

H 

2 

> 

c 

w 

r 


o 

3^ 

o’ 

03 

CTQ 

O 


O 
G 
73 

X 

o 

G 

C/5 

G 

> 

G 

G 

s 

> 

r 

G 

n 

o 

r 

g 

H 

H 

G 

G 

O 

H 

S 

g 


o 

o 


oo 

"a 

X3 

VJ 

3j 

a. 

o 

a. 


CTQ 

3“ 

f““f- 

CD 

03 

*-t 

03 

3 

Cl 

03 


in 

m 

a 

G 

C/5 

O 

G 

H 

G 

G 

n 

> 

— 

g 

> 

M 

o 

03 


o 

p 


o 

C5 

CD 

w 

fo 

D- 

CD 

73 

Cl 


=tt  ^ 

LO  C/3 
O  C/3 

bo  o 


2 

5* 


LO 

OO 

i 

'O 


LO 


CO 


► 

9 


*Q 

C 

P 


P 

9 

w 

o 

o 

7? 

in 

r 

r 

n 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/ourhouseafirelucOOschr 


